what is the alt right?

[NYcarbineer]

He got killed by a communist, a member of today's mainstream alt-left Democrats.

Let's remind all that every presidential assassin in the history of the nation has been a liberal- or has not been associated with a political outlook- none were right-wingers.

John Wilkes Booth. First one.

How many times must I teach you this same lesson???

Take notes this time:

1. John Wilkes Booth was opposed to President Lincoln’s Republican war policies. His letter to is family explained he was furious with Lincoln for having brought war to the South! THE MURDERER OF MR. LINCOLN.; Extraordinary Letter of John Wilkes Booth Proof that He Meditated His Crime Months Ago His Excuses for the Contemplated Act His Participation in the Execution of John Brown. Commissioners of Public Charities and Correction. Fires. The Seventh Ward Fire Note from Chief Engineer Decker.

2. Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth, “…an angry Copperhead, a.k.a., ‘peace democrat,’ (when that meant pro-slavery, of course.) John Wilkes Booth - Liberapedia
John Wilkes Booth

Exactly. "Right wing".

You need me to draw it out in stick figures?

Or are you so far gone that you think Lincoln was on the right?

Name 2 modern Democrat stances that Lincoln would be for....

Lincoln would be leading the alt-right if he were alive today.

The Constitutional superiority of federal government.

Equal rights for gay Americans.

 

[NYcarbineer]

He got killed by a communist, a member of today's mainstream alt-left Democrats.

Let's remind all that every presidential assassin in the history of the nation has been a liberal- or has not been associated with a political outlook- none were right-wingers.

John Wilkes Booth. First one.

How many times must I teach you this same lesson???

Take notes this time:

1. John Wilkes Booth was opposed to President Lincoln’s Republican war policies. His letter to is family explained he was furious with Lincoln for having brought war to the South! THE MURDERER OF MR. LINCOLN.; Extraordinary Letter of John Wilkes Booth Proof that He Meditated His Crime Months Ago His Excuses for the Contemplated Act His Participation in the Execution of John Brown. Commissioners of Public Charities and Correction. Fires. The Seventh Ward Fire Note from Chief Engineer Decker.

2. Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth, “…an angry Copperhead, a.k.a., ‘peace democrat,’ (when that meant pro-slavery, of course.) John Wilkes Booth - Liberapedia
John Wilkes Booth

Exactly. "Right wing".

You need me to draw it out in stick figures?

Or are you so far gone that you think Lincoln was on the right?

I realize how embarrassed I've made you...but stop lying.


John Wilkes Booth.....Democrat....killer.


Now that I've boiled you in oil....intellectually....I love to kick a dog when he's down...

So....this:

1. Throughout our history, only two senators and two congressmen have been assassinated. The first and last were killed by Democrats for political reasons. (The other two, for nonpolitical reasons.) Republican James Hinds of Arkansas was killed in 1868 by secretary of the Democratic Committee for Monroe County and KKK member, George A. Clark. Democrat representative Leo Ryan was shot in 1978 by Jim Jones left-wing cult in Guyana. The other two were Senator Huey Long, and Senator Robert Kennedy (for supporting aid to Israel). CRS Congress Deaths

The easiest way to recognize that Liberals know their side is the most violent is to see how often they blame the Right.

1. Guess which political group both the Southern Poverty Law Center and the FBI consider the most dangerous in America? Environmentalists. Yep. Some $43 million in damage by the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front in the past two decades.
   1. “Extremists within the environmental and animal rights movements have committed literally thousands of violent criminal acts in recent decades — arguably more than those from any other radical sector, left or right.” Eco-Violence: The Record
   2. “A leader of the Earth Liberation Front, a radical environmentalist organization the FBI described as America's most dangerous domestic terrorist group, refused to answer questions Tuesday before a congressional hearing on ecoterrorism.” Head of Radical Environmentalist Group Stays Silent at Hearing on Ecoterrorism. - Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News | HighBeam Research

I have plenty more.

Let me know when you pick yourself up from the floor.

John Wilkes Booth was a states rights conservative,

just like you.

 

[SwimExpert]

Let's remind all that every presidential assassin in the history of the nation has been a liberal- or has not been associated with a political outlook- none were right-wingers.

So you believe that Booth was a liberal? Then how do you explain Guiteau? The Republicans of the latter 19th century were the liberals of their day. Now, you may deny that and attempt to paint Booth as a liberal, but then that leaves you with a dilemma. Guiteau assassinated Garfield after continued (albeit incompetent) advocacy for Grant, Garfield, and the Republican party. His crime was spurred because the President denied his applications to a various jobs within the administration.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's remind all that every presidential assassin in the history of the nation has been a liberal- or has not been associated with a political outlook- none were right-wingers.

So you believe that Booth was a liberal? Then how do you explain Guiteau? The Republicans of the latter 19th century were the liberals of their day. Now, you may deny that and attempt to paint Booth as a liberal, but then that leaves you with a dilemma. Guiteau assassinated Garfield after continued (albeit incompetent) advocacy for Grant, Garfield, and the Republican party. His crime was spurred because the President denied his applications to a various jobs within the administration.

This is what I said: every presidential assassin in the history of the nation has been a liberal- or has not been associated with a political outlook- none were right-wingers.

And, of course, as usual, I am totally correct.

"Then how do you explain Guiteau? "
Simple...almost as simple as your are:

Charles J. Guiteau, who shot President James Garfield, was part of a utopian commune, the Oneida Community, where free love was practiced.
What could be more "liberal."

You can find that here: Ackerman, “Dark Horse: The Surprise Election and Political Murder of President James A. Garfield,” p.135


Let's remind all of the attempt to hide behind, and obfuscate via the various meaning of "Liberal."

Classical liberal, the Founders, would be known as conservatives today.
That is proven simply by the following litmus test: those liberals, and today's conservatives have doctrines based on individualism, limited constitutional government, and free markets.


Colloquial 'Liberals'....e.g., Obama, Bill's wife, and Democrat voters, endorse none of those.

 

[bripat9643]

The term keeps popping up. Never heard it before the end of the primary. What is it?

They are nationalists who oppose the globalism.

On the other hand, they are not what the left claims. Which is what they claim regarding all their enemies... "xenophobes, misogynists, racists.. " basically they perceive any enemy as the next coming of Hitler and an extreme right-winger, no matter how moderate.

Above is a perfect example of a racist bigot who thinks his grotesque views are in line with American values.

the Alt right see themselves as "patriots" -- just like the dixiecrats segregationists did back in the 1960's. They didn't think their white kids should have to go to school with or drink from the same fountains as black kids.

So what does the so-called "Alt-right" believe that's racist or misogynist? When leftwing douche bags use the term "xenophobic," they just mean that you oppose open borders and importing Muslim terrorists into the country. Applying a nasty sounding label to perfectly reasonable beliefs is a leftwing douche bag specialty.

Believing in the merit of preserving a white European culture to the exclusion of all others is by definition racist.

To the exclusion of all others? Doesn't Mexican culture exist in Mexico? Doesn't Syrian culture exist in Syria? Why does it need to exist here?

 

[SwimExpert]

Let's remind all that every presidential assassin in the history of the nation has been a liberal- or has not been associated with a political outlook- none were right-wingers.

So you believe that Booth was a liberal? Then how do you explain Guiteau? The Republicans of the latter 19th century were the liberals of their day. Now, you may deny that and attempt to paint Booth as a liberal, but then that leaves you with a dilemma. Guiteau assassinated Garfield after continued (albeit incompetent) advocacy for Grant, Garfield, and the Republican party. His crime was spurred because the President denied his applications to a various jobs within the administration.

This is what I said: every presidential assassin in the history of the nation has been a liberal- or has not been associated with a political outlook- none were right-wingers.

And, of course, as usual, I am totally correct.

"Then how do you explain Guiteau? "
Simple...almost as simple as your are:

Charles J. Guiteau, who shot President James Garfield, was part of a utopian commune, the Oneida Community, where free love was practiced.
What could be more "liberal."

You can find that here: Ackerman, “Dark Horse: The Surprise Election and Political Murder of President James A. Garfield,” p.135


Let's remind all of the attempt to hide behind, and obfuscate via the various meaning of "Liberal."

Classical liberal, the Founders, would be known as conservatives today.
That is proven simply by the following litmus test: those liberals, and today's conservatives have doctrines based on individualism, limited constitutional government, and free markets.


Colloquial 'Liberals'....e.g., Obama, Bill's wife, and Democrat voters, endorse none of those.

Thank you for admitting that the Republicans of the 19th century were the liberals of their time. Booth, therefore, was a conservative.

 

[bripat9643]

It's a Democrat construct

Bullshit. Thanks for showing us you are willing made up a lie instead of admitting your ignorance of a subject.

Alt Right is a name the racialists gave themselves. It is not a "Democrat [sic] construct".

"Alternative Right" is the same as "Alternative Left". A lazy descriptor.

Alt.right is merely the current tag applied to Hillary's "vast right-wing conspiracy" - the Democrat construct - with the race card now brought brightly to the fore in the hopes the minorities won't glance at history and notice how the Democrats have been assfucking them over the decades.

Your use of [sic} is erroneous.

You are demonstrably wrong. The #AltRight hashtag has been around on Twitter for a long time now. Folks incorporate it in their profiles there as a point of pride and Breitbart open writes about it and has openly written about it for months. It is far from made up and is as real as #gamergate. It is also equally as vile.

What is also true is that the #AltRight is not the Tea Party. It is not the Conservative movement. It is not the GOP. It's a bunch of assholes that are out there to be assholes. Racists, Misogynists, and general scum. There are no good #AltRight people. They're the kind of people that to hang out with them demeans anyone. But they are real. And their connection to an support of Trump is real, and that is the problem.

Whatever it was, it is currently the vast right wing conspiracy of Hillary Clinton's nightmares. The term has been co-opted, and media are running with it.
.

Actually the Wiki page on Alt Right has been there eight months. You're just whining that you weren't aware of it.

Which is kinda typical of the uncurious who can't be bothered to learn shit.

Eight months? That's almost as long as Trump has been running for office!

 

[bripat9643]

The alt.right believes races are not equal. They believe in nationalism for all. Ben Shapiro believes in nationalism for JEWS, but not for whites? He proves the alt.right case against Jews: they are total hypocrites on nationalism. They want it for themselves, but no-one else --- especially the dumb white goyim who vote Trump!

That's not entirely accurate. First of all, you're referring more to Zionists than you are Jews as a whole. Second, Zionist Jews don't want to deprive anyone of nationalism. They simply are so nationalist they could care less. It's more about embracing the nationalist principle that conflict empowers a state, and a 'might makes right' morality, backed with the delusion that God will fight their battles because he wants them to win. In short, Zionist Jews want others to be just as nationalist as they are, so that they can then engage in conflict with you, because they believe that their victory is guaranteed by God.

Only anti-Semites use the term "Zionism."

Yeah, that's it. Painting all Jews with a single broad brush is just logical. But point out that Jews are a diverse people and only some people hold certain views.....that's just plain out Jew hating racism. God damn you're fucking stupid.

Anti-Semites use the term "Zionism" to disguise their hatred of Jews.

No one is fooled.

False. But no big deal because nobody was fooled.

Everyone who isn't an anti-Semite knows it's true.

 

[bripat9643]

Let's remind all that every presidential assassin in the history of the nation has been a liberal- or has not been associated with a political outlook- none were right-wingers.

John Wilkes Booth. First one.

How many times must I teach you this same lesson???

Take notes this time:

1. John Wilkes Booth was opposed to President Lincoln’s Republican war policies. His letter to is family explained he was furious with Lincoln for having brought war to the South! THE MURDERER OF MR. LINCOLN.; Extraordinary Letter of John Wilkes Booth Proof that He Meditated His Crime Months Ago His Excuses for the Contemplated Act His Participation in the Execution of John Brown. Commissioners of Public Charities and Correction. Fires. The Seventh Ward Fire Note from Chief Engineer Decker.

2. Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth, “…an angry Copperhead, a.k.a., ‘peace democrat,’ (when that meant pro-slavery, of course.) John Wilkes Booth - Liberapedia
John Wilkes Booth

Exactly. "Right wing".

You need me to draw it out in stick figures?

Or are you so far gone that you think Lincoln was on the right?

I realize how embarrassed I've made you...but stop lying.


John Wilkes Booth.....Democrat....killer.


Now that I've boiled you in oil....intellectually....I love to kick a dog when he's down...

So....this:

1. Throughout our history, only two senators and two congressmen have been assassinated. The first and last were killed by Democrats for political reasons. (The other two, for nonpolitical reasons.) Republican James Hinds of Arkansas was killed in 1868 by secretary of the Democratic Committee for Monroe County and KKK member, George A. Clark. Democrat representative Leo Ryan was shot in 1978 by Jim Jones left-wing cult in Guyana. The other two were Senator Huey Long, and Senator Robert Kennedy (for supporting aid to Israel). CRS Congress Deaths

The easiest way to recognize that Liberals know their side is the most violent is to see how often they blame the Right.

1. Guess which political group both the Southern Poverty Law Center and the FBI consider the most dangerous in America? Environmentalists. Yep. Some $43 million in damage by the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front in the past two decades.
   1. “Extremists within the environmental and animal rights movements have committed literally thousands of violent criminal acts in recent decades — arguably more than those from any other radical sector, left or right.” Eco-Violence: The Record
   2. “A leader of the Earth Liberation Front, a radical environmentalist organization the FBI described as America's most dangerous domestic terrorist group, refused to answer questions Tuesday before a congressional hearing on ecoterrorism.” Head of Radical Environmentalist Group Stays Silent at Hearing on Ecoterrorism. - Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News | HighBeam Research

I have plenty more.

Let me know when you pick yourself up from the floor.

John Wilkes Booth was a states rights conservative,

just like you.

Unfortunately he killed Lincoln after the Civil War was over rather than at the beginning.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's remind all that every presidential assassin in the history of the nation has been a liberal- or has not been associated with a political outlook- none were right-wingers.

So you believe that Booth was a liberal? Then how do you explain Guiteau? The Republicans of the latter 19th century were the liberals of their day. Now, you may deny that and attempt to paint Booth as a liberal, but then that leaves you with a dilemma. Guiteau assassinated Garfield after continued (albeit incompetent) advocacy for Grant, Garfield, and the Republican party. His crime was spurred because the President denied his applications to a various jobs within the administration.

This is what I said: every presidential assassin in the history of the nation has been a liberal- or has not been associated with a political outlook- none were right-wingers.

And, of course, as usual, I am totally correct.

"Then how do you explain Guiteau? "
Simple...almost as simple as your are:

Charles J. Guiteau, who shot President James Garfield, was part of a utopian commune, the Oneida Community, where free love was practiced.
What could be more "liberal."

You can find that here: Ackerman, “Dark Horse: The Surprise Election and Political Murder of President James A. Garfield,” p.135


Let's remind all of the attempt to hide behind, and obfuscate via the various meaning of "Liberal."

Classical liberal, the Founders, would be known as conservatives today.
That is proven simply by the following litmus test: those liberals, and today's conservatives have doctrines based on individualism, limited constitutional government, and free markets.


Colloquial 'Liberals'....e.g., Obama, Bill's wife, and Democrat voters, endorse none of those.

Thank you for admitting that the Republicans of the 19th century were the liberals of their time. Booth, therefore, was a conservative.

Stop lying.

Democrats and Republicans have the very same characteristics that they always had.

Booth favored slavery and segregation and second class citizenship.

These are the identifying characteristics of the Democrats/Liberals up to an including this very day.



Proof? Sure....the most popular Democrat and former President has an unbroken record of racism throughout his entire political life.
I certainly hope you try to deny that.


And you Democrat/Liberals are drooling to put him back in the White House.

Exactly the same characteristics of John Wilkes Booth and Bill 'the rapist' Clinton, both Democrats/Liberals.

You'd vote for both, as only a low-life, gutter dweller would.

 

[SwimExpert]

Democrats and Republicans have the very same characteristics that they always had.

That's a lie. But even letting you have it, that would mean that Guiteau was a conservative. You can't have it both ways. You'll sit here and spasm like a fish out of water as you desperately try to spin the matter. But it won't make you correct. It will only emphasize how much of a stupid kvnt you are.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Democrats and Republicans have the very same characteristics that they always had.

That's a lie. But even letting you have it, that would mean that Guiteau was a conservative. You can't have it both ways. You'll sit here and spasm like a fish out of water as you desperately try to spin the matter. But it won't make you correct. It will only emphasize how much of a stupid kvnt you are.

"That's a lie."
How absurd: I never lie.
I publish truth with the diligence of a UN translator.

Watch your language: you're not at home speaking with your family.

 

[Pogo]

Let's remind all that every presidential assassin in the history of the nation has been a liberal- or has not been associated with a political outlook- none were right-wingers.

So you believe that Booth was a liberal? Then how do you explain Guiteau? The Republicans of the latter 19th century were the liberals of their day. Now, you may deny that and attempt to paint Booth as a liberal, but then that leaves you with a dilemma. Guiteau assassinated Garfield after continued (albeit incompetent) advocacy for Grant, Garfield, and the Republican party. His crime was spurred because the President denied his applications to a various jobs within the administration.

This is what I said: every presidential assassin in the history of the nation has been a liberal- or has not been associated with a political outlook- none were right-wingers.

And, of course, as usual, I am totally correct.

"Then how do you explain Guiteau? "
Simple...almost as simple as your are:

Charles J. Guiteau, who shot President James Garfield, was part of a utopian commune, the Oneida Community, where free love was practiced.
What could be more "liberal."

You can find that here: Ackerman, “Dark Horse: The Surprise Election and Political Murder of President James A. Garfield,” p.135


Let's remind all of the attempt to hide behind, and obfuscate via the various meaning of "Liberal."

Classical liberal, the Founders, would be known as conservatives today.
That is proven simply by the following litmus test: those liberals, and today's conservatives have doctrines based on individualism, limited constitutional government, and free markets.


Colloquial 'Liberals'....e.g., Obama, Bill's wife, and Democrat voters, endorse none of those.

Horse shit, Spandex girl. The term "Liberal" has never changed. Your Revisionista "classic" song and dance is one more lame attempt to Doublethink an existing term into its own opposite so that you and your fellow travellers may pervert it. Been going on since the Red Scare daze. It still ain't selling.

And NO, the Founders could in no way be called "conservatives" in any stretch of that term. They were radicals, upsetting the existing apple cart of the First and Second Estates with the radical ideas that power derives from the People. There is no way in hell you can call that "conservative". The actual conservatives of the time were the Loyalists.

You should prolly try to peddle this kind of revisionist crapola somewhere where nobody knows their history or political science.

 

[SwimExpert]

How absurd: I never lie.

Which is a lie.

 

[Pogo]

Democrats and Republicans have the very same characteristics that they always had.

Booth favored slavery and segregation and second class citizenship.

These are the identifying characteristics of the Democrats/Liberals up to an including this very day.

That's not even remotely within smelling distance of vaguely close.

Political parties are not some ideological rock that never moves. Their purpose is to consolidate political power. That's it.
How they go about that depends on which way the political and social winds blow at the time.

Elementary PoliSci for the uninitiated:
When the Republican Party was founded in 1854 they represented Liberalism (by virtue of their advocacy of Abolition) and they represented big central government (by virtue of absorbing the dying Whig Party, which disintegrated because it could not make up its mind on slavery). The Democrats at the time were the party of "states rights" -- smaller central government -- and like many parties of the first half of the 19th century, failed to address the question of slavery, wanting to have it both ways.

That morphed however at the turn of the next century when the RP took on the interests of the rich and the corporations, while the DP absorbed the Populist movement, associations that largely continue to this day. That pushed the RP to the right and the DP to the left. No better examples of these two currents were the Roosevelts --- Teddy attempting to keep the RP "Progressive" and Liberal in his third-party run in 1912, and FDR executing the agenda of the Populists and Progressives in the '30s.

"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." -- a Liberal said that.


You need to crack a history book someday, Toots.

 

[SwimExpert]

Elementary PoliSci for the uninitiated:
When the Republican Party was founded in 1854 they represented Liberalism (by virtue of their advocacy of Abolition) and they represented big central government (by virtue of absorbing the dying Whig Party, which disintegrated because it could not make up its mind on slavery). The Democrats at the time were the party of "states rights" -- smaller central government -- and like many parties of the first half of the 19th century, failed to address the question of slavery, wanting to have it both ways.

Isn't it funny how the very same morons who complain that the civil war was some kind of big government injustice by the north against the southern states are the same morons who insist that the big government northern Republicans were conservatives?

 

[bripat9643]

Elementary PoliSci for the uninitiated:
When the Republican Party was founded in 1854 they represented Liberalism (by virtue of their advocacy of Abolition) and they represented big central government (by virtue of absorbing the dying Whig Party, which disintegrated because it could not make up its mind on slavery). The Democrats at the time were the party of "states rights" -- smaller central government -- and like many parties of the first half of the 19th century, failed to address the question of slavery, wanting to have it both ways.

Isn't it funny how the very same morons who complain that the civil war was some kind of big government injustice by the north against the southern states are the same morons who insist that the big government northern Republicans were conservatives?

I don't insist that pre Civil war were "conservatives." I think the terms "liberal" and "conservative" were meaningless at that time.

 

[SwimExpert]

Elementary PoliSci for the uninitiated:
When the Republican Party was founded in 1854 they represented Liberalism (by virtue of their advocacy of Abolition) and they represented big central government (by virtue of absorbing the dying Whig Party, which disintegrated because it could not make up its mind on slavery). The Democrats at the time were the party of "states rights" -- smaller central government -- and like many parties of the first half of the 19th century, failed to address the question of slavery, wanting to have it both ways.

Isn't it funny how the very same morons who complain that the civil war was some kind of big government injustice by the north against the southern states are the same morons who insist that the big government northern Republicans were conservatives?

I don't insist that pre Civil war were "conservatives." I think the terms "liberal" and "conservative" were meaningless at that time.

Did I say your name? At least you know you're a moron.

 

[bripat9643]

Elementary PoliSci for the uninitiated:
When the Republican Party was founded in 1854 they represented Liberalism (by virtue of their advocacy of Abolition) and they represented big central government (by virtue of absorbing the dying Whig Party, which disintegrated because it could not make up its mind on slavery). The Democrats at the time were the party of "states rights" -- smaller central government -- and like many parties of the first half of the 19th century, failed to address the question of slavery, wanting to have it both ways.

Isn't it funny how the very same morons who complain that the civil war was some kind of big government injustice by the north against the southern states are the same morons who insist that the big government northern Republicans were conservatives?

I don't insist that pre Civil war were "conservatives." I think the terms "liberal" and "conservative" were meaningless at that time.

Did I say your name? At least you know you're a moron.

A moron would be agreeing with you.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

It's a Democrat construct

Bullshit. Thanks for showing us you are willing made up a lie instead of admitting your ignorance of a subject.

Alt Right is a name the racialists gave themselves. It is not a "Democrat [sic] construct".

"Alternative Right" is the same as "Alternative Left". A lazy descriptor.

Alt.right is merely the current tag applied to Hillary's "vast right-wing conspiracy" - the Democrat construct - with the race card now brought brightly to the fore in the hopes the minorities won't glance at history and notice how the Democrats have been assfucking them over the decades.

Your use of [sic} is erroneous.

You are demonstrably wrong. The #AltRight hashtag has been around on Twitter for a long time now. Folks incorporate it in their profiles there as a point of pride and Breitbart open writes about it and has openly written about it for months. It is far from made up and is as real as #gamergate. It is also equally as vile.

What is also true is that the #AltRight is not the Tea Party. It is not the Conservative movement. It is not the GOP. It's a bunch of assholes that are out there to be assholes. Racists, Misogynists, and general scum. There are no good #AltRight people. They're the kind of people that to hang out with them demeans anyone. But they are real. And their connection to an support of Trump is real, and that is the problem.

Whatever it was, it is currently the vast right wing conspiracy of Hillary Clinton's nightmares. The term has been co-opted, and media are running with it.
.

Actually the Wiki page on Alt Right has been there eight months.

Whoopdee-doo. That does not preclude the contents of my statement.